[RascalPuff]

Re: Time Does Not Exist (Reprise) - Today, 12:58 PM



A WORD ABOUT SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A Disinformational Time Of The Signs:
'Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space.'
- A popular bumpersticker mentality.


Actually: terrestrial time standards are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) around the sun. A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega at about 265 miles per second). A month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year. A week is 1/4th of that month. A day is 1/7th of that week. An hour is 1/24th of a day. A minute is 1/60th of an hour. A second is 1/60th of a minute. Therefore, a second of time, for example is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth in its annual orbit around the sun.
Time is the interval separating events in space - refer 'space-time'; where space motion 'and' time are recognized as being inseparable. Motion exists and occupys space. Space exists and accomodates motion (=time, ad infinitum).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

RP, you've missed the whole reality___Time is "Fundamental Matter In Motion."

Lloyd

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Re: Time Does Not Exist (Reprise) - Today, 12:58 PM A WORD ABOUT SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A Disinformational Time Of The Signs: 'Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space.' - A popular bumpersticker mentality. Actually: terrestrial time standards are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) around the sun. A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega at about 265 miles per second). A month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year. A week is 1/4th of that month. A day is 1/7th of that week. An hour is 1/24th of a day. A minute is 1/60th of an hour. A second is 1/60th of a minute. Therefore, a second of time, for example is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth in its annual orbit around the sun. Time is the interval separating events in space - refer 'space-time'; where space motion 'and' time are recognized as being inseparable. Motion exists and occupys space. Space exists and accomodates motion (=time, ad infinitum).

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks RP,We see sometimes what we want to see!I see NOW!now,and NOW,forever now.



regards michael.

[theunify]

When time is now, more space is perceived so NOW is an absolute fundemental reality.

It's difficult to plan for temporal everything .

[RascalPuff]

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

How is 'Fundamental matter in motion' any kind of disagreement with what I posted?

- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Dear Mr. Gillespie: How is 'Fundamental matter in motion' any kind of disagreement with what I posted? - RP

RP, if you agree "Fundamental matter in motion" is 'Time', and all time is, then we are in agreement. I just sense you feel time to be more than it truly is... If you agree time is only a measure of matter in motion, then welcome to the real world of physics, and the entirely physical universe, including all energy/matter and infinity... IMO, infinity is absolute real fundamental matter___It absolutely has to be, or the universe couldn't/can't exist... The larger, the infinite, is the fundamental of the lesser, the finite___Logic allows no other true explanation... If you look at infinity as the classic, "one degree of freedom", then it's infinite when viewed, as looking in on itself, yet, if viewed as looking out at itself, it by default, becomes finite___Herein lies all the seeming paradoxes, which really are not real... Observer position defines reality...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie RP, if you agree "Fundamental matter in motion" is 'Time', and all time is, then we are in agreement. I just sense you feel time to be more than it truly is... If you agree time is only a measure of matter in motion, then welcome to the real world of physics, and the entirely physical universe, including all energy/matter and infinity... IMO, infinity is absolute real fundamental matter___It absolutely has to be, or the universe couldn't/can't exist... The larger, the infinite, is the fundamental of the lesser, the finite___Logic allows no other true explanation... If you look at infinity as the classic, "one degree of freedom", then it's infinite when viewed, as looking in on itself, yet, if viewed as looking out at itself, it by default, becomes finite___Herein lies all the seeming paradoxes, which really are not real... Observer position defines reality... Lloyd

_________________

Dear Mr. Gillespie:
From as much as I think I understand of our views on the subjected issues, I am happy to say that I don't think we have any irreconcilable disagreements about fundamental motion or infinity. Do you perceive 'space' as being functionally metric? By that I mean that space is not absolutely empty, but rather is an entity unto itself, closely bound with - and translatable as a part of - the energy that travels through it? That is (approximately) what I think metric, functional space is. As opposed to empty, non-metric, absolute 'classic' space. Re: 'There is no space empty of field' - Einstein

I wish you to know also that I learned the more exact meaning of 'mass value increases with velocity', from you. Your correction didn't disqualify the points I was making at the time, but your correction certainly did refine my translation and motivate me to exclude the mistake.

So far as I presently understand it, Lloyd, our differences seem to be about the expanding universe. From the time of it's discovery and the advent of explanations for it, the consensus was, in the exemplary words of George Gamow:

"The discovery that our universe is expanding provided a master key to the treasury chest of cosmological riddles. If the universe is now expanding, it must have been once upon a time in a high state of compression."
- Gamow, The Creation of the Universe, p. 28

Variations on this theme are abundant throughout the recent - if not the latest - history of the Standard Theorist response to the observation of the spatially expanding universe.
The foremost exception to this rule are (were) Bondi, Gold and Hoyle, with their Steady State scenario, which was eventually abandoned for its need of the 'spontaneous creation of hydrogen'.
More recent information finds the expanding universe accelerating. Einstein's formerly abandoned cosmological constant ( /\ ) has been put back into service, ironically employed to sustain the big bang theory which it was not originally intended for.

Since the time these statements were made, more information has come in regarding the nature of the expansion and the big bang school has made some 'auxiliary adjustments' to accomodate the new data, which otherwise gainsays the original school of big bang thought...
The fact that there is no common point from which the big bang expansion originates has been rationalized every which way, to avoid the (Steady State advocating) conclusion that there is a repelling force acting out of individual physical systems ( /\ ) - just like the impelling force of gravity, but, in the opposite direction.... And, that instead of this repelling force merely preventing the universe from collapsing on itself, it is the cause of the observed expansion (Refer, De Sitter, Friedmann). When matter itself is recognized as a contiguous part of the spatial expansion, the Steady State theory is reinstated, because there is no longer any need for the (unacceptable) spontaneous creation of Hydrogen, to compensate for what would otherwise be the 'thinning out' of given units of space with the passage of time.

Incidentally, I see the spatially and materially expanding universe en toto as spiral shaped - much like the nautilus pompileus linnae, and finite at any given moment in space, but infinite in time.

I have only briefly touched upon some issues here, think there's a lot more we need to talk about, and I will if you will.

Regards
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Double entry. I am clocked out in the middle of my dissertation. When I clock back in to send, there's a double entry. Don't know how to avoid this. Please advise. Thank you.

[Andrew]

Mr. RascalPuff:
It's Andrew, the one who asked You to send me Your 61 articles via e-mail, if You read that post. As I said on this Forum my initial field is Social Sciences, and it's fascinating to see how the spiral pops up everywhere! I find the spiral as the best to explain the behavior and the functioning of the society! I also refer everybody to click "Spiral Equation" up in Google - maybe we can draft more people into the Forum from there!

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Andrew Mr. RascalPuff: It's Andrew, the one who asked You to send me Your 61 articles via e-mail, if You read that post. As I said on this Forum my initial field is Social Sciences, and it's fascinating to see how the spiral pops up everywhere! I find the spiral as the best to explain the behavior and the functioning of the society! I also refer everybody to click "Spiral Equation" up in Google - maybe we can draft more people into the Forum from there!

Dear Andrew:
As a fundamental exression in nature, the logarithmic spiral has a way of emerging in many different places and forms.
I am almost computer illiterate and I don't know how to send you information with attachments. I don't know what you're referring to in the subjection of 'articles'. As I said earlier, you are welcome to copy the material posted at http://forums.delphiforms.com/EinsteingGroupie , which is an in progress condensation of my work. I am complimented by your interests. Thank you. If you have anything posted I would be happy to post the URL for you so that others may access it. Please let me know how you're doing.

Regards,
RP (K.B. Robertson)